The Quentin Tarantino Collection (2011)

The Quentin Tarantino Collection (2011)

Number of discs: 6  |  Running Time: 625 minutes (combined)

I may get around to rewatching (or in some cases watching for the first time) QT's later films, or I may not, but until then have this, a collection of five features put out by Lions Gate Home Entertainment housed in a cheapo, flimsy cardboard box.

That's the actual box art on the right, with QT looking moody. Perhaps someone accused him of mass plagiarism prior to the photo being taken?

Every time I see it I wonder if it was a conscious decision not to have the cover art for the films in the order they were released or did someone screw up?

Of that order, the first two I'm very pleased to own, and if they weren't included I'd have bought them separately. The next one I'm mostly indifferent to. The final two I don't care for at all, even though I'm a fan of many of the things that inspired them.

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Dir. Quentin Tarantino

Revisiting Reservoir Dogs was as entertaining as I hoped it'd be. It's an excellent film, proving to me that it wasn't just riding high on a temporary wave of counter-culture hype back in the '90s.

It's a heist movie, but whereas most films focus on the planning and preparation of the heist, usually only getting to the actual theft in the last half hour, Dogs focuses on what happens after the big event, when it all goes sour. It doesn't even show the heist - just the fallout.

Outfitting bad guys in matching suits was a striking image before QT's time and it still is today. And having the action take place primarily in locations that rarely change means the remainder of it hasn't visibly dated.

The importance of music is felt even though there's no actual score; any music in the film is heard by one or more of the characters.

QT didn't have the freedom to be too self-indulgent, so the balance of style and substance is more even, and his dialogue is more purposeful - discussions about Madonna songs aside.

The big name actors get all the attention, so I'd like to take the time to give a shout out to Kirk Baltz, who played Marvin Nash, the guy in the chair, because he did an equally fine job.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Dir. Quentin Tarantino

PF is a nonlinear collection of about half a dozen stories that overlap in interesting ways, even though none of them really go anywhere meaningful. On one hand it's deserving of being pulped, but the performances, dialogue and love shown to established filmic techniques (rear projection car rides, long tracking shots, split-focus lens and even a McGuffin) are indulgently entertaining.

I don't feel so bad about not liking it very much on my first viewing, because subsequent viewings have made me realise that it requires more than one watch to properly analyse it.

In many ways it's not unlike the tasty burger that Sam Jackson makes a big deal over in one of the stories: it's constructed from chopped up pieces and satisfies for a brief time. However, at 154 minutes I do feel that it pushes against the limits of acceptability for that kind of thing. Personally, while I enjoy parts of it, I wouldn't be upset if I never see it again.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Dir. Quentin Tarantino

From the incomplete selection of QT films I've seen, Jackie Brown is by far the best. It has the usual long takes heavy with dialogue, but they serve a purpose that's not just QT showing off.

The storytelling has some twists and turns but it's not struggling to adhere to the usual gimmickry, perhaps because he didn't write it from scratch, it's an adaptation of an Elmore Leonard novel, Rum Punch (1992).

Hiring Pam Grier was perhaps QT's best decision to date. Her experience helped it feel mature thematically. She gave Jackie a real sense of a woman who'd been through some shit and come out the other side stronger.

It spends a long time building towards the pay off, longer than many films run in their entirety, but because it's a story for adults, and not just post-pub thrill-seekers with undiagnosed attention deficits or kids who think stories with drugs and violence are cool, the time invested is rewarded with more than just gunfire and spectacle. It has its "levels set just right". Bravo, QT.

Kill Bill: Vol 1 (2003)

Dir. Quentin Tarantino

QT's first misstep is 100% style over substance.

It's the film equivalent of a kid in a Lego store who builds a structure that threatens to collapse under the weight of its own aspirations because it has no real foundation. It's the director saying: I like Chanbara, Westerns, Blaxploitation, Wuxia, and Uma's feet, so I'm going to put them all together. I'm so bad-ass!

I don't like the film very much, in fact, at times I had to even force myself to keep watching it for purposes of review, but I'm kind of glad I did stick it out because otherwise I'd not have had the pleasure of reliving the film's best part: Lucy Liu. Uma is the lead character, but for me it's Lucy that's the most memorable. Her Lady Snowblood scene made me want to rewatch the original, and that's always a good thing.

Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004)

Dir. Quentin Tarantino

The Bride, armed with her Hattori Hanzô sword, continues to pursue Bill so she can do what the title says she wants to do: Kill Bill... still.

Volume I was mostly about action, whereas Volume II is mostly about talking. Neither film offers a satisfying viewing experience.

I believe a filmmaker's desire to express his/herself in a creative way should be fulfilled as much as possible, but their first duty should always be to the story. QT delivered self-indulgent wankery for both of those things.

I prefer a well-written dialogue scene to an explosive action scene, so this one should've been more engaging for me, but there's only about ten minutes in total when I wasn't bored out of my fucking mind.

If Vols I and II ever get re-edited into the rumoured Whole Bloody Affair then I'll happily reassess the work and my subjective reactions to it, but it'll need to be a complete pacing re-edit and not just a lazy-ass joining at the middle.